Pravda wrote:Ratcheting up the pace in the last lap or so would seem like better use of your energy than trying to ride off the front with a few laps to go.

Ratcheting up the pace in the last lap has a higher probability of towing strong sprinters to the last 150 metres in a fresher state. There's also more randomness in the last lap and bunch sprint - you can get blocked by front and side riders, others can veer dangerously, etc.

A strong endurance/weak sprint rider will rarely win in a bunch sprint. He has a higher probability of winning by making a break stick. Whether that requires a 3,5,7,10, 20 minute break with 1,2,3,4 guys is partial to systematic inductive investigation, the scientific method.

winstonw wrote:A strong endurance/weak sprint rider will rarely win in a bunch sprint. He has a higher probability of winning by making a break stick. Whether that requires a 3,5,7,10, 20 minute break with 1,2,3,4 guys is partial to systematic inductive investigation, the scientific method.

They all work, on their day. They all fail, on their day.

The choice of the right time/place to attack is more ephemeral than what you seem to think. There is both an art and a science to it.

But really, once you've cracked a winning formula, game theory dictates that either:- others will eventually counter with alternative tactics/strategy of their own (e.g. riders become more heavily marked once they start winning),- or If they can't succeed in foiling your tactics, then up a grade you go before you have enough data points for statistical significance.

winstonw wrote:The tactic, not the rider, is the variable of significance.

If that were true, you wouldn't see the same riders on the podium all of the time. (*)

As Alex said... there will shortly come a time when you will either be upgraded, or the rest of your grade will get the shits with you and your team and actively work against all of you. Eventually, if you end up in A grade, you will discover that it's all about the rider - see (*).

winstonw wrote:The tactic, not the rider, is the variable of significance.

Yet the deployment of the same tactic is already known to result in different outcomes, because in cycle racing you can't control all the other variables and the starting assumptions for each race are never the same.

If a rider wins regularly using the same tactic, then they are in the wrong grade, or they are Philip Gilbert.

winstonw wrote:The tactic, not the rider, is the variable of significance.

Yet the deployment of the same tactic is already known to result in different outcomes, because in cycle racing you can't control all the other variables and the starting assumptions for each race are never the same.

If a rider wins regularly using the same tactic, then they are in the wrong grade, or they are Philip Gilbert.

winstonw wrote:The tactic, not the rider, is the variable of significance.

Yet the deployment of the same tactic is already known to result in different outcomes, because in cycle racing you can't control all the other variables and the starting assumptions for each race are never the same.

If a rider wins regularly using the same tactic, then they are in the wrong grade, or they are Philip Gilbert.

Or Fabian.

Or Cav .

Winston I agree with your idea dont listen to those with years of experience (Alex and TLL) or those that have probably tried tactics similar many times and is at a much higher level then you (Twizzle). Go on thinking you know more than everyone. Oh and as per the other thread dodgy tactics is the way to win friends also.

Just a little story for you in Sydney there is a team they show up to races as a team they win almost every race they enter and its not surprising if they get 1st 2nd and 3rd. They are also racing half a grade down (they race A grade but compete on NRS level) are they doing anything scientific? No. They are just stronger and work as a team, it is a team sport after all. When you have 5 people working together they will more than likely beat 5 people working by themselves especially when they are stronger then the others, this doesnt make you any great theologian or tactician.

IF you want the scientific approach as per sky tell me exactly what watts you can sit on and how on a 7% grade you will just sit on those watts and let people attack because they will be reeled back in as they will not be able to sustain a high enough W/kg by themselves to breakaway. This was their theory, this is how they rode.

- Skull touches on an important point. Club crits don't have a universally applicable regulation on riding as teams.....otherwise expert opinion/sarcasm from Alex and Twizzle would have been voiced already.

- the voice of experience would have us bound at the hip to steelies and leather hair nets.

- it's 2012. C grade in my neck of the woods is dominated by 40+yo time poor racing novices. Most don't have time to do regular group race training.

- The voices of experience are illiterate in regards to the specific cardiovascular, neuromotor, and special sense physiology of this cohort, and how that impacts their ability to develop racecraft.

- Your perception of dodgy tactics is based on something you have zero insight into, apart from the emotionally loaded, wrong perspective of Zep. The training tactics are validated by Elite A graders, former Commonwealth and Olympic competitors, and key administrators of Zep's club, all of whom participate in the training.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Yet the deployment of the same tactic is already known to result in different outcomes, because in cycle racing you can't control all the other variables and the starting assumptions for each race are never the same.

If you have a library of tested group tactics, you have a higher probability of responding successfully to a library of 'other variables'.

And being elevated to a higher grade is proof positive the tactics work. Whereas, racing year after year in the same grade is proof of what exactly?

This thread is perplexing. It started out with an 'unusual' question about C graders and now (if I understand it) is debating whether or not a scientific approach to aggressive racing will work?

For what it's worth (unhidden brag coming) I have been fortunate enough to win quite a few bike races. I can't recall ever winning two the same way. Each and every situation warrants a different strategy. Multiple variables (in bike racing) creates a scenario where you need to do different things to be successful each time. If you use the same trick (regardless of strategy), I'm not sure that would work.

- Skull touches on an important point. Club crits don't have a universally applicable regulation on riding as teams.....otherwise expert opinion/sarcasm from Alex and Twizzle would have been voiced already.

- the voice of experience would have us bound at the hip to steelies and leather hair nets.

- it's 2012. C grade in my neck of the woods is dominated by 40+yo time poor racing novices. Most don't have time to do regular group race training.

- The voices of experience are illiterate in regards to the specific cardiovascular, neuromotor, and special sense physiology of this cohort, and how that impacts their ability to develop racecraft.

- Your perception of dodgy tactics is based on something you have zero insight into, apart from the emotionally loaded, wrong perspective of Zep. The training tactics are validated by Elite A graders, former Commonwealth and Olympic competitors, and key administrators of Zep's club, all of whom participate in the training.

I just had to laugh out loud at the 4th point their. Alex is a highly regarded trainer of people of all ages and has even coached atleast one Masters world record holder. I am sure he has no idea however.

Yes C grade has an older bunch some of which are very experienced, additionally it has some racing novices. In my neck of the woods, yes they dont always have time for training but when they catch a break and do a few weeks or months consistently their results reflect their increased training.

I dont think I have ever seen any of the people I have mentioned mentioning us being on steel bikes etc infact they are quite the opposite (especially alex).

Yes a lot of clubs dont really care either way, some however do not like it. What is your point?

As far as your dodgy tactics go it would not surprise me with the way you are talking here. Frankly I am much more inclined to believe Zep.

You have still not mentioned anything remotely scientific. As far as I understand your training consists of some paceline work, I am sure noone else does that.

Oh and Winston most the time its up to the rider himself to put himself up a grade when they can handle it.

winstonw wrote:- The voices of experience are illiterate in regards to the specific cardiovascular, neuromotor, and special sense physiology of this cohort, and how that impacts their ability to develop racecraft.

I certainly don't consider myself illiterate in such matters and find the assertion offensive.

winstonw wrote:And being elevated to a higher grade is proof positive the tactics work.

Or you are stronger rider than the "40+yo time poor racing novices"

well that's the point of a wise club handicapper isn't it.... to deduce whether physiology, racecraft/cunning, or defying probability determines a rider's success.

No, the point of a handicapper is to (attempt to) fairly handicap riders based on results relevant to the race(s) being handicapped, not to address specific individual issues as to why they may attain such results.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:No, the point of a handicapper is to (attempt to) fairly handicap riders based on results relevant to the race(s) being handicapped, not to address specific individual issues as to why they may attain such results.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:No, the point of a handicapper is to (attempt to) fairly handicap riders based on results relevant to the race(s) being handicapped, not to address specific individual issues as to why they may attain such results.

winstonw wrote:- Your perception of dodgy tactics is based on something you have zero insight into, apart from the emotionally loaded, wrong perspective of Zep. The training tactics are validated by Elite A graders, former Commonwealth and Olympic competitors, and key administrators of Zep's club, all of whom participate in the training.

As far as your dodgy tactics go it would not surprise me with the way you are talking here. Frankly I am much more inclined to believe Zep.

Don't believe me sheeesh ................I'm very emotionally charged & likely to come out with all sorts of irrational rubbish.

Happy to report though that I don't participate in any group training/pace-line efforts or ride with anybody apart from my 48kg Squirrel (Wife-hardcore MTB freak) & my power meter.

The coach tells me that if I ignore what the body is trying to tell me, great things can be achieved & of course HTFU princess !!

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:How on earth can using actual results be anything but fair?

Alex, if using actual results is the best and fairest way to handicap, then there's no handicapper discretion...a computer algorithm could do it.But you qualified your statement with 'attempt' and 'fairly'.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:How on earth can using actual results be anything but fair?

Alex, if using actual results is the best and fairest way to handicap, then there's no handicapper discretion...a computer algorithm could do it.But you qualified your statement with 'attempt' and 'fairly'.

Because all the results from all clubs are kept nice and neatly together somewhere where you can apply your computer algorithm to? As has been mentioned previously cause all C grades are the same....

Anyone that can do a 45km/h paceline for 80km is not a C grader. When I was in A grade I couldnt even do it for 25km.